History Calls … Olympia Snowe

From Mount Olympus Ms. Olympia, a Republicans, has issued forth: “Is this [healthcare] bill all that I would want? Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”

In the event you are not yet, at once, sickened and bored by the long process it is taking the president and his politburo of proctologists to herd us all into healthcare pens, here’s the latest from the NYT:

“The Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to approve legislation that would reshape the American health care system and provide subsidies to help millions of people buy insurance, as Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, joined all 13 Democrats on the panel in support of the landmark bill. …

The bill endorsed on Tuesday seeks to provide health benefits to a majority of uninsured by expanding Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for the poor, and creating new state-run insurance options for individuals and families earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level or $44,100 for a family of four.

For many other moderate-income Americans, the bill would provide government subsidies to help them buy insurance through new government-regulated marketplaces.

The legislation also seeks to impose strict new regulations on the insurance industry, including banning insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and it would require nearly all Americans to obtain coverage.

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Finance Committee bill over 10 years would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 29 million.

It would still leave 25 million people uninsured, about one-third of them illegal immigrants.

The bill is projected to cost $829 billion over the 10 years, which would be fully offset by new tax and fees, including a tax on high-cost insurance policies, as well as by savings from slowing the growth in Medicare spending by the government.

Democrats and Republicans argued loudly over the fiscal implications of the bill, which the budget office has predicted will reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over 10 years.”

[SNIP]

Less tedious is this succinct comparison of the schemes:

Comparing the Health Care Proposals
“The Senate Finance Committee approved a health care bill on Tuesday. Senate Democratic leaders will now have to merge the bill with a more liberal measure approved in July by the Senate health committee. Three House committees also approved health care bills in July and House leaders are now working to distill from the three bills one package that will go to the floor. How the measures compare on some key issues”:

Require nearly all Americans to have a minimum level of health insurance or pay a penalty.
House version

Would include mandate.

Exempt those who cannot afford insurance and people with religious objections. The bill does not specify standards for financial hardship waivers.

Penalty: 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over a certain level ($18,700 for a couple).

Senate Health Committee

Would include mandate.

Exempt American Indians and those who cannot afford insurance. The bill does not specify standards for financial hardship waivers.

Penalty: Up to $750 a person a year.

Senate Finance Committee

Would include mandate, starting in 2013.

Exempt American Indians, people with religious objections, those who cannot afford insurance, households with incomes lower than 133 percent of the poverty level ($29,327 for a family of four) and individuals who would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income to buy the lowest cost plan available to them.

Penalty would be phased in gradually: $200 a person in 2014; $400 in 2015; $600 in 2016; and $750 in 2017.

White House

Open to a mandate as long as people who cannot afford insurance are exempt. During the campaign, President Obama proposed mandates for children only.

“I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility. But I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it.” (Letter to Senate leaders, June 3)

Interest groups

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurers’ lobby, supports individual mandates. If individual mandates are passed, insurers say they will stop refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and charging higher premiums based on gender or health status. Most of the proposals allow insurers to charge more for older people, subject to federal limits.

Drug companies and insurers could benefit from mandates, which could provide millions of new customers.

Labor unions and consumer groups support mandates for individuals as long as employers are required to help pay for coverage.

[End NYT excerpt]